Programs that convert source code into machine code may be instructed to sequence assembly language instructions in a manner that minimizes the potential for damage to a pipeline. Pipeline design aims to achieve this as one of its outcomes. To ensure maximum efficiency, do all assemblers and compilers rearrange assembly language instructions in the same way?

Programs that convert source code into machine code may be instructed to sequence assembly language instructions in a manner that minimizes the potential for damage to a pipeline. Pipeline design aims to achieve this as one of its outcomes. To ensure maximum efficiency, do all assemblers and compilers rearrange assembly language instructions in the same way?

Systems Architecture

7th Edition

ISBN:9781305080195

Author:Stephen D. Burd

Publisher:Stephen D. Burd

Chapter4: Processor Technology And Architecture

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 2PE: If a microprocessor has a cycle time of 0.5 nanoseconds, what’s the processor clock rate? If the...

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Processor R is a 64-bit RISC processor with a 2 GHz clock rate. The average instruction requires one cycle to complete, assuming zero wait state memory accesses. Processor C is a CISC processor with a 1.8 GHz clock rate. The average simple instruction requires one cycle to complete, assuming zero wait state memory accesses. The average complex instruction requires two cycles to complete, assuming zero wait state memory accesses. Processor R can’t directly implement the complex processing instructions of Processor C. Executing an equivalent set of simple instructions requires an average of three cycles to complete, assuming zero wait state memory accesses. Program S contains nothing but simple instructions. Program C executes 70% simple instructions and 30% complex instructions. Which processor will execute program S more quickly? Which processor will execute program C more quickly? At what percentage of complex instructions will the performance of the two processors be equal?
Instructions in assembly language may be sequenced by compilers and assemblers in such a manner that the danger to a pipeline is minimized. Pipeline design aims to achieve this as one of its outcomes. Is there a universal standard for how assemblers and compilers rearrange assembly language instructions to maximize efficiency?
Compilers and assemblers may be designed to sequence assembly language instructions in such a manner that a pipeline has the fewest potential dangers. Do all assemblers and compilers rearrange assembly language instructions in the same manner to achieve maximum efficiency?
It is possible to design compilers and assemblers to order assembly language instructions such that a pipeline is exposed to the least amount of risk possible. One of the objectives of pipeline design is this. Do all assemblers and compilers rearrange instructions provided in assembly language in the same manner to achieve the best degree of productivity?
Assembly language instruction ordering may be optimized to reduce the vulnerability of a pipeline by careful design of compilers and assemblers. This is a target of pipeline construction. Does every assembler and compiler optimize productivity by rearranging assembly language instructions in the same way?
An assembly-language compiler and an assembler may be configured such that a pipeline bears as little risk as is possible. Pipeline design has this as one of its aims. Do all assemblers and compilers rearrange instructions provided in assembly language in the same manner in order to achieve the best potential degree of productivity?
It is possible to design compilers and assemblers that reorder assembly language instructions in such a way that a pipeline has the fewest potential hazards. To achieve optimal efficiency, do all assemblers and compilers rearrange assembly language instructions in the same way?
Compilers and assemblers can be programmed to sequence assembly language instructions in a way that poses the least risk to a system's pipelines. In fact, achieving this is a primary focus when planning a pipeline. Is it true that all assemblers and compilers rearrange the order of assembly language instructions in the same way?
It is feasible for compilers and assemblers to be built to sequence assembly language instructions in a pipeline in a way that poses the fewest dangers. To achieve optimal efficiency, do all assemblers and compilers rearrange assembly language instructions in the same way?
Compilers and assemblers may be designed to sequence assembly language instructions in such a manner that a pipeline has the fewest possible risks. Do all assemblers and compilers rearrange assembly language instructions in the same manner to achieve maximum efficiency?
Compilers and assemblers may be configured to sequence assembly language instructions in such a manner that a pipeline encounters the least amount of risk possible. One of the purposes of pipeline design is to achieve this. Do all assemblers and compilers rearrange assembly language instructions in the same manner in order to achieve the best potential degree of productivity?
It is possible to teach compilers and assemblers to sequence assembly language instructions in a manner that poses the least possible danger to a pipeline. One of the purposes of a pipeline's layout is to achieve this. Do all assemblers and compilers rearrange assembly language instructions in the same manner to maximize efficiency?